Thinking Ethically

By Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper and bid
us farewell on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with
questions about the morality of surrogate motherhood, the legitimacy
of publicizing the names of AIDS victims, the ethics of exposing
the private lives of political candidates, the justice of welfare
and the rights of the homeless.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How,
exactly, do we think through an ethical issue? What questions
should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is an obvious one:
get all the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply
because people do not bother to check out the facts. This first
step of analysis, although obvious, is also the most important
one and the one that is most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only
tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition
to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires
an appeal to values. Three kinds of value systems have been
developed by philosophers to deal with moral issues. One such
system is called "utilitarianism."

Utilitarianism was developed in the nineteenth century by
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine
which laws were the morally best ones. Both Bentham and Mill
suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest
balance of good over evil. To analyze an issue using the utilitarian
approach, we must first identify the various courses of action
available to us. Second, we must ask who will be affected by
each action and what benefits or harm will be derived from each
action. And third, we choose the course of action that will
produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical
action is the one that provides "the greatest good for the greatest
number."

The second important approach to ethics is one that has its
roots in the philosophy of the eighteenth century thinker, Immanuel
Kant, and others like him, who focused on the individual's right
to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers,
what makes human beings different from mere things is that people
have a dignity based on their ability to freely choose what
they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental right
to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be
manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people
in ways they do not freely choose.

There are, of course, many different but related rights besides
this basic one. These other rights can be thought of as different
aspects of the basic right to be treated as we freely choose
to be treated:

The right to the truth: People have a right to be told
the truth and to be informed about matters that affect their
choices in significant ways.

The right of privacy: People have the right to do, believe
and say whatever they choose in their personal lives, so long
as they do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: Individuals have a right not
to be unwillingly harmed or injured, unless they freely and
knowingly did something deserving of punishment or they freely
and knowingly chose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: People have a right to what
they have been promised by those who freely chose to enter
a contract or agreement with them.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this
second approach, then, we must ask: "Does the action respect
the moral rights of everyone?" Actions are wrong to the extent
that they violate the rights of individuals, and the more serious
the violation, the more wrongful the action.

A third approach to ethics is one that focuses on the concepts
of justice and fairness. It has its roots in the saying of the
ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who wrote that "equals
should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic
moral question in this approach is, how fair is an action? Does
it treat everyone the same, or does it show favoritism or discrimination?
Justice requires that we treat people in ways that are consistent,
and not arbitrary. Basically, this means that actions are ethical
only if they treat people the same, except when there are justifiable
reasons for treating them differently. Favoritism is giving
benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling
them out, while discrimination is imposing burdens on people
who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed.
Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

These three approaches suggest that once the facts have been
ascertained, there are three questions we should ask when trying
to resolve a moral issue: (1) What benefits and what harms will
each course of action produce, and which will produce the greatest
benefits or the least harm for the public as a whole? (2) What
moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course
of action best respects these moral rights? (3) Which course
of action treats everyone the same except where there is a justifiable
reason not to? Does the course of action show favoritism or
discrimination?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution
to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely
meant to help identify most of the important factors that should
be considered when thinking about a moral issue, and the questions
that are important to ask. In some situations, the three approaches
may conflict. The course of action that will produce the most
benefits for everyone may also violate the rights of some or
may be unjust to some, or perhaps several conflicting rights
are involved. What should be done in such cases? When conflicts
like these arise, we must weigh the various moral values identified
by each of the three approaches and make up our own minds about
which values are decisive. Are the overall benefits so large
that limiting the rights of some is justified? Does our commitment
to justice require us to forego the greatest good for the greatest
number? Is this right or that one the more significant one?
n the end, moral issues are issues that each person must decide
for herself or himself, keeping a careful eye on the facts,
and on the benefits, the rights and the justice involved.

The views expressed on this site are the author's. The
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics does not advocate particular positions
but seeks to encourage dialogue on the ethical dimensions of current
issues. The Center welcomes comments
and alternative points of view.